Labour is in deep trouble with Black voters. Operation Black Vote (OBV) chair David Weaver warns the party is ‘accepting the normalisation of racism’. This isn’t just a polling dip, it is a fundamental collapse of trust from its voters.

Weaver highlights how to government’s plans to restrict jury trials will ‘heighten, normalise and embed’ racial disproportionality. This is not a new concern for those watching the party’s trajectory. We’ve long been aware of how the current leadership has prioritised pro-business optics over the safety of marginalised communities.

Labour have a hierarchy of racism

We’ve all long known of the hierarchy of racism within Labour. In the 2022 Forde Report, commissioned by the party itself, confirmed this toxic culture. It found that Labour was failing to treat all forms of racism with equal seriousness.

Martin Forde KC detailed how Black and Asian MPs and members faced specific, targeted abuse which was often ignored or downplayed by Labour’s own bureaucracy. The reported stated that antisemitism was being used as a factional weapon while other forms of racism – specifically anti-Black racism and Islamophobia – were being systemically ignored.

The Labour Files and subsequent investigations revealed a judiciary as well as a party structure which often treats Black and Brown voices as disposable when they conflict with the party’s central narratives. This hierarchy means that whilst some forms of prejudice are rightly tackled, others are normalised, creating an environment where Black voters feel increasingly ignored and alienated.

Juries are out on justice

Restricting juries means moving the UK towards judge-only trials, removing a massive safety net for Black people. In England and Wales, only 1% of judges are Black and removing the public oversight of a jury hands total power to an overwhelmingly white judiciary.

In drug offenses the odds of getting a custodial sentence are 140% higher for Black people than for white offenders with similar histories. Juries act as a filter for prejudice that single judges simply do not provide.

This reform ignores the racial reality of the UK justice system. Juries often act as the last line of defence for Black people against state overreach. By gutting this right, the Labour party is intensifying this systematic bias that already sees Black people given longer sentences.

We are not protecting Black people from the prejudices of biased white judges. A University of Manchester study, Racial Bias and the Bench found that 95% of legal professionals believe racial bias plays a role in the justice system. Furthermore, 56% of those professionals reported witnessing a judge show racial bias towards a defendant.

At a time when racial tensions are growing and white supremacy is on the rise in the UK, it’s fucked up to think that Labour thinks removing juries is going to be a good idea.

The Race Equality Act betrayal

Confidence is also eroding because of the lack of urgency surrounding the Race Equality Act. Labour promised a landmark Race Equality Act to mandate ethnicity pay gap reporting for large employers. However, the legislation has faced repeated delays.

Campaigners have accused Labour of stalling out of a fear of political pushback, with the party’s promises being nothing more than performative bollocks. Labour seems to love using Black struggles for campaign photo-ops but slows the actual legislation progression behind the scenes.

This stalling is a material failure. Closing the ethnicity pay gap could add £37bn to the UK’s annual GDP. Labour is failing to act on these promised protections whilst simultaneously fast-tracking racist jury reforms, sending a clear message about whose safety and financial stability it actually values.

The marginal seat risk

Black voters backed Labour more than any other group in 2024, yet that loyalty is not reflected in the party leadership. Weaver warns that support is now wavering in key marginal seats.

We saw how the 2024 elections produced a surge in marginal seats, with 115 being won by a margin of 5% or less. In constituencies such as Hendon, where the winning margin was a tiny 0.04% – just 15 votes – a small shift in Black voter turnout is enough to change the result. Especially when the white population of places such as Hendon only equate to 50%.  So why the fuck are Labour spitting in the face of their most loyal voter demographic?

By betraying Black voters, Labour risk putting marginal seats on the line.

Labour’s strategy of putting people of colour in high positions without changing the underlying systems is failing. It gives legitimacy to institutional racism rather than dismantling it. If Labour continues to ignore these warnings it will lose more than just votes. It will lose its moral authority to stand for equality.

Will the party finally stop taking Black people’s votes for granted? Or will it let its most loyal voter demographic walk away?

Featured image via National Diversity Awards

Dr Emmanuel Igwe is lead economist at the Prosperity Institute.

One may be forgiven for being fatigued by Liz Truss’ repeated assertion that ‘the Blob’ derailed her short-lived premiership in 2022.

Yet, in a recent appearance on the Daily T, she made a thought-provoking comment amidst her usual diatribes. When Tim Stanley challenged her about recent criticisms levelled by broadcast media and colleagues in the Conservative party which described her proposed tax cuts as “unfunded”, and thereby fiscally reckless, Truss dismissed the entire framing. “Unfunded tax cuts” she said, “are just a left-wing attack line”.

This may seem like merely another bellicose remark, attempting to wave away a substantive criticism with mere rhetoric. But, placing any reservations readers may have about Mrs. Truss to one side, we are faced with a serious point: is the idea of ‘unfunded tax cuts’ one we should accept without question?

Accepting the idea of “unfunded tax cuts” implies that the current level of taxation is the natural baseline, and that people holding onto more of their money is an extravagance that needs to be justified. Such framing, championed by the Treasury and associated independent bodies, is now unanimously shared across the political spectrum. Even Reform Party’s new shadow chancellor, Robert Jenrick proposed that a Reform Government would only cut taxes if there is sufficient fiscal headroom to do so.

At what point did tax cuts cease to be a distinctive feature of the British economic Right? Somewhere between kowtowing to the bean counters at the Treasury and the need to court votes from a public made allergic to wealth it has lost its way. The policy objective that defined the Thatcher years, Reaganomics, New Zealand’s Rogernomics, and Australia’s Hawke-Keating administration is now derided as inherently fiscally irresponsible by many Tories, as well as their flagship newspaper.

Granted, there are clear reasons to criticise the ill-fated 2022 mini-budget, though not the ones so often touted. The Energy Price Guarantee, for instance, a £40 billion subsidy which capped household bills at £2,500 distorting price signals, was an interventionist policy which command economies would envy. These errors were compounded by the institutional warfare unleashed in response to Truss dismissing the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury and disregarding the OBR forecast, damaging market confidence in the process.

Nonetheless, as the Bank of England admitted in 2024, the mini-budget only accounted for nearly 50 per cent of the turbulence that led to the fall in gilt prices, with the remaining 50 per cent attributed to its lacklustre regulations on liability-driven investment strategies used in pension funds at the time. In other words, although the mini-budget catalysed the fall in gilt prices (for which Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng deserve the blame), the Bank had created the underlying conditions which made such a fall highly likely anyway.

The distinction between the catastrophic execution of the mini-budget and the core principles of tax-cutting supported in supply-side economics matters. There has never been a pre-requisite for spending cuts to be identified before tax cuts are made, because the tax base is expanded through tax reductions.

What follows from tax cuts is economic growth stimulated by capital formation and a smaller state. This is what was witnessed in the United States during the Reagan years, in the Hawke-Keating administration in Australia, in New Zealand’s Rogernomics and in Britain during the Thatcher government. Across the board, drastic tax cuts resulted in economic growth, all of whom justified their premise on the fact that higher taxes in the 1960s and 70s stifled economic growth, and cutting taxes enabled enterprise, that engine of economic growth.

Demanding that tax cuts need to be supposedly “funded” suggests that the money people earn is the property of the State. To believe this is to accept the baseline assumptions of communism and Liz Truss is right to point that out. It should be noted here that the other side of the Left-wing position—that is the Modern Monetary Theorists (i.e. heterodox Left)—would posit that governments with sovereign control of their currencies only need taxation to control inflation, stating that there should be no limit to government spending.

By contrast, the conservative position recognises peoples’ income as theirs, with taxes being only a necessary contribution to the maintenance of certain common assets, which has broad consent and ought to be clearly justified and constantly reviewed by those who wish to take it. Economic growth, therefore, is achieved when there is a healthy relationship between private enterprise, individual incentives, and the State — with productivity and capital formation being stimulated rather than the private sector being continuously crowded out by the public sector.

Thus, the OBR was right to be questioned about its reach and its poor methodology, as I have suggested elsewhere. Regarding its modelling on taxation, its static approach fails to account for both the changes which lower taxes cause in consumer and market behaviour and the dynamic supply-side responses (e.g. growth in productivity, labour supply, and investment). Thereby, the OBR perpetuates an institutional narrative that favours higher taxes, undermining long-term economic growth in the process.

The error of the Truss mini-budget was not tax cuts. Rather, it was the accompanying subsidies which posed distortionary effects as well as the absolute disregard for fiscal institutions. The lesson learned here should not be that tax cuts are risky. Instead, it should be that the relationship between the government and the OBR needs reform such that the government is neither beholden to its opinion, nor totally dismissive of any commentary it may have on the state of the economy.

In a period where government spending continues to expand, the calamity of the Truss mini-budget has emboldened critics of a major tenet of supply-side economics that was central to economic growth in Britain, the United States, New Zealand and Australia in the 80s and mid-90s. Hence, we are stuck in a bind where the reigning viewpoint is that government spending is at the heart of the economy, with each state spending priority a sacred cow that must not be desecrated.

For the Right to show it has not bought into the narrative of unfunded tax cuts it needs to be emphatic on the benefits of lower taxation as a vehicle for both collective and individual economic freedom and audacious in its pursuit to achieve it.

Brandon To is a Politics graduate from UCL and a Hong Kong BN(O) immigrant settled in Harrow.

I am writing this from Japan, where I have spent the past week rediscovering what it means to be unmistakably in someone else’s country.

The cultural signals are relentless. Bowing — so much that my back may never recover. Escalator etiquette (standing on the left, how deeply unsettling for a Briton). The absolute silence on public transport. The choreography of politeness in even the most mundane transactions.

Japan has an unshakeable confidence in its own way of doing things.

But something else struck me this time. Compared to my last visit over a decade ago, there are far more foreign faces. Not just tourists, but immigrants.

In Tokyo, I found myself speaking to a bank manager from Denmark in an izakaya (the Japanese equivalent of a pub), who was heading to his weekly onsen retreat. In Kyoto, I chatted with two Malaysian exchange students in a tea house. Convenience store workers, hotel staff, restaurant servers… many were from South or Southeast Asia.

Yet what surprised me was not their presence.

It was how unmistakably Japanese they were.

They spoke fluent Japanese (at least according to my Japanese friend). They bowed instinctively. They navigated the rituals of politeness with ease. They did not appear to be living adjacent to Japanese society; they were part of it.

And it made me reflect on a simple truth about immigration that Britain has spent years avoiding.

There is a spectrum, from tourist to student to worker to permanent resident to citizen. The duration differs. The legal status differs. But the core principle is the same: when you enter another country, adapt to it.

Integration is not an optional extra that begins after settlement. It is the starting condition of being a guest, be it two weeks or two decades.

Japan is unapologetic about this. If you wish to live and work there, you are expected to learn the language properly, respect public order, and internalise their etiquette. That expectation is not framed as hostility. It is framed as respect — both for the host country and for those who came before you.

It is, in effect, a country with faith in its own culture.

Britain once had that confidence too. We are a country famous for etiquette, from holding doors open to queuing instinctively. But more importantly, we are defined by deeper civic habits: respect for the rule of law, free speech, fairness in public life, and tolerance rooted in shared norms.

Where we faltered was not in allowing immigration. It was in losing clarity about the need for integration.

For too long, governments of different stripes treated migration primarily as an economic instrument. Integration was assumed to happen organically. Cultural cohesion was dismissed as either automatic or irrelevant. And don’t forget there’s the liberal flank that always confuse integration with “ assimilation “, framing any discussion of it as racist and xenophobic.

The result, in some areas, has been parallel lives rather than shared ones. When any group, especially religious ones, begins to “ claim “ certain neighbourhoods, and behave as if British freedoms such as free speech apply selectively, integration has clearly failed.

That failure has fuelled understandable public frustration. It has also created space for parties like Reform UK to argue that the only solution is a blanket hostility towards immigration.

But here is where we must think carefully.

Reform’s instinct is blunt. It risks suggesting that if you do not look British, you may never truly be British. That is not a confident nationalism; it is a brittle one.

A country unsure of itself excludes by default. A country secure in its identity integrates by expectation.

The Conservative answer should not be a return to liberal complacency. Nor should it be a race to outflank Reform on rhetorical hardness, a competition we will never win, because they can always go further.

In this immigration debate, the Conservative answer should be integration.

If you come to Britain, whether as a student, a worker, or a permanent migrant, you are expected to adapt. Learn English properly. Obey the law. Respect social norms. Participate in civic life. Contribute economically.

Those who refuse should not remain.

But those who do integrate should be more than welcome. They should be recognised as strengthening the country, and as Conservatives, we should actively speak up for them.

This is not “weakness in the face of the immigration crisis”. It is the ability to distinguish. To welcome the contributors, and stop the disturbers.

Japan’s lesson is not that it has no immigration. It is that it manages immigration with cultural clarity.

Britain does not need to become Japan. Our history, our diversity, and our institutions are different. But we do need to recover the confidence to say that British norms matter, and that adapting to them is the price of entry. That is the middle path between open-door policy and blanket hostility, and if the Conservative Party wishes to win again, it must articulate that difference clearly.

Welcome to those who adapt. Exit for those who refuse. It is just common sense, and it is long overdue.

Ahead of Mother’s Day (Sunday 15 March), the Fairtrade Foundation commissioned a new Kantar survey. It reveals only 4% of UK adults are aware that most of the flowers sold at this time of year come from East Africa (mainly Kenya and Ethiopia). Over 80% of flowers sold in the UK are imports, with around half grown in East Africa, 12% in the Netherlands and 9% in Colombia.

Flowers remain one of the UK’s favourite Mother’s Day gifts. 39% of people plan to buy them this year, rising to 70% of 25-34 year olds and 61% of 16-24 year olds. However, the survey highlights a striking lack of awareness of the people and places behind the stems.

Flower growers’ working conditions

Many flower workers in Kenya, Ethiopia, Colombia and Ecuador – most of them women – face low pay, long hours, unsafe working conditions and exposure to harmful chemicals. On average, flower workers in Kenya earn £2 a day or less.

More than three quarters (76%) of people in the UK aren’t aware that most flower growers working in East Africa earn below the living wage for their work growing the flowers we buy at this time of year.

90% were concerned about the human rights and environmental challenges in the industry, including low pay and exposure to pesticides, faced by flower growers working overseas, and two thirds of people are interested in finding out more about the people who grow their flowers (rising to 88% of 25-34 year olds).

Choosing flowers with the Fairtrade Mark on their packaging means they have grown on Fairtrade-certified farms. These have met strict standards, including rules on health and safety including pesticides and protective equipment.

Up to 70% of workers on flower farms in Kenya are women. On Fairtrade-certified farms, workers – most of them women – benefit from stronger protections and investment in their wellbeing.

At Shalimar Flowers Farm in Naivasha, Kenya, Fairtrade Premium funds have supported leadership training, childcare and skills development. As Rebecca Amoth, who works as a flower grower on the farm, explained:

When I started working here, it was common to hear cases of harassment. Women were afraid to speak up, and even more afraid to dream… Today, more women are stepping into leadership. And when something isn’t right, we speak up.

Rebecca has also been able to access subsidised childcare because of Fairtrade sales – paying just £0.90 a month instead of the £12 charged by private facilities. Fairtrade Premium funds have helped train workers like her to develop new skills and earn additional income to support their families. Rebecca explained:

I’ve paid school fees without stress, and I’m building a permanent home.

Fairtrade flowers

Fairtrade flowers are grown with respect for people and for the planet, making them a good option for those looking to buy flowers this Mother’s Day. 57% of people (60% of women) surveyed agreed, saying that knowing flowers were Fairtrade would make a Mother’s Day gift feel more meaningful. However, over half of UK shoppers (57%) are unaware that Fairtrade flowers are widely available to buy, in supermarkets and online retailers.

Responding to the findings, Marie Rumsby, director of advocacy at the Fairtrade Foundation, said:

Women make up a large proportion of the global flower workforce, yet too many are still in low-paid, insecure and unsafe roles.

This Mother’s Day, we’re urging people to support the women behind our bouquets – by choosing Fairtrade flowers and by signing Fairtrade’s petition to demand business that’s fair to people and planet – these simple acts will help protect the women who grow the blooms we love.

Advertisement

Our research shows UK shoppers care deeply about how their flowers are produced, but they aren’t getting the transparency they deserve. People want to make ethical choices, yet the reality of low pay, long hours and unsafe conditions is too often hidden from view.

Businesses and government must step up to ensure the people behind our flowers are protected and treated with dignity.

Right now, companies can still operate without taking full responsibility for what happens in their supply chains. That’s why Fairtrade is calling for a strong, mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence law – one that ensures workers are safe, paid fairly and able to speak up without fear.

This Mother’s Day, look for the Fairtrade Mark on your flowers to support the people who grow them. And as the government concludes its Responsible Business Conduct Review, we urge ministers to put fairness for farmers and workers at the heart of UK supply chains.

Advertisement

The government is in the process of updating its National Baseline Assessment of progress against the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. And it’s due to release the outcome of its Responsible Business Conduct Review later in March. As the government finalises its Review, Fairtrade is urging ministers to introduce a strong, mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence law so companies take responsibility for conditions in their supply chains.

Call for government action

Against this backdrop, the research shows strong public backing for tougher action: 82% of UK adults surveyed believe both the UK government and businesses should do more to prevent human rights abuses and environmental harm in their supply chains.

To amplify the call for government legislation, on Tuesday 10 March a digital van will tour Westminster displaying messages to the minister for trade, Chris Bryant. The messages come from Fairtrade’s CEO, Fairtrade farmers and workers, fair fashion campaigner Venetia La Manna, and the CEO of the Co‑op. They all urge the introduction of a responsible business law (also known as a Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence law).

Alongside this, Fairtrade supporters are sending around 1,000 postcards directly to the minister to reinforce the message.

In the UK, shoppers can buy Fairtrade flowers online at Arena Flowers and Bloom & Wild, or in supermarkets like Aldi, Asda, Co-op and Lidl.

Emily Pearce, Co-op’s senior sustainable sourcing and international development manager, said:

It’s clear from the research that flowers remain a firm Mother’s Day favourite. At Co-op, we’re proud to be making it easier for our members and customers to choose Fairtrade as the UK’s largest retailer of Fairtrade flowers, sourcing 112.5 million stems last year alone.

We have been supporting Fairtrade for more than 30 years, championed by our passionate members.

We see first-hand the difference it can make and whilst there is still much to do to address unfairness in global food supply chains, we know that through our commitment, our members and customers are contributing to a fairer deal for the farmers and workers producing these beautiful blooms.

Advertisement

The global cut flowers trade is worth over $30bn. Last year in the UK, florists saw a more than fivefold transaction uplift on the Friday before Mother’s Day.

Featured image via the Fairtrade Foundation

I have a treat for you. Clyde Best is a true West Ham legend. He can legitimately be described as Britain’s first star black footballer, and a real role model for the black players that followed him into the professional game in the 1970s and 1980s. He came to this country as a 17 year old from Bermuda in 1968 and played for West Ham from 1969-76, before playing for various teams in the NASL in the USA,

On 25 March, a new documentary will be premiered at Sadlers Wells East in Stratford. It’s called ‘Transforming the Beautiful Game – The Clyde Best Story’. It will have daily showings from 25th-28th March. Sadlers Wells East is the theatre on the right as you walk up to the London Stadium from the station.

After each screening, Clyde Best, Ade Coker and others will join a panel to discuss the documentary and the issues raised.

I’ve seen the documentary and it is absolutely superb. It features many players like Viv Anderson and Ian Wright, who say they couldn’t have had their careers without Clyde.

Last week Clyde came into the LBC studio and I recorded an hour long interview with me for my IAIN DALE ALL TALK podcast. We don’t normally film these, but in this case, I decided we would film it so I could share it with you.

So you can watch above, or if you prefer you can listen on the podcast HERE from 1am on Wednesday 11 March.

And if you want to attend one of the screenings you can buy tickets HERE.

The PR blurb for the docuentary describes it thus…

He was a striker, and at 17, he debuted alongside Sir Geoff Hurst for West Ham United. Despite constant racism, he rose to stardom—playing 218 first-team games and scoring 58 goals over his career. On Easter weekend in 1972, West Ham United became the first team ever to start three Black players in one game, making English League history: Clive Charles, Ade Coker, and Clyde Best. His untold story is featured in the new upcoming documentary Transforming the Beautiful Game, a powerful testament to resilience, quiet revolution, and a legacy that reshaped the future of the global game.

The Clyde Best Story features never-before-seen archival footage from historic matches involving the Bermuda National Team, West Ham United, and the NASL, paired with in-depth interviews with football legends including Ian Wright, Geoff Hurst, Viv Anderson, Garth Crooks, Rodney Marsh, Howard Gayle, and Harry Redknapp. Additional voices—Randy Horton, Bobby Barnes, Patrick Horne, Carlton Cole, Paul Davis, Ade Coker, Kasey Keller, and Clyde Best himself—add depth, perspective, and authenticity to the story.

Samurai suit of armour and helmet: Iron, silk, wool, leather, gold and lacquer, 1519 (helmet), 1696 (armour) and 1800s (textiles) | Image by: Charlie J Ercilla / Alamy

5 min read60 min

I was pleasantly surprised when The House magazine asked me to review the samurai exhibition at the British Museum. I had already been meaning to see it, particularly because of my great-grandmother who was Japanese and whose family had been samurai.

In the 1860s my great-grandfather had set up a trading company in Fuzhou (Foochow), a port in southeast China. It was there that he became friends with a Japanese artist who had left his homeland during the Meiji Restoration, and his sister, who later became my great-grandfather’s wife.

The emperor Meiji had ended over 250 years of Tokugawa shogunate rule, returning authority back to the emperor (the restoration is one of several periods covered in this excellent exhibition). This action catapulted Japan out of its isolation and, in an astonishingly tiny number of years, transformed Japan from a closed and feudal state into a modern, industrial and military power. It also ended the authority of the samurai and withdrew their extensive and arbitrary rights.

The exhibition charts the development of the samurai from loose collections of warriors into what eventually became a highly structured organisation in the 11th and 12th centuries, loyal to their shūgo (lord), up to their eventual demise in 1868. In fact, in their last 250 years, there were few battles to fight and many of them became more like civil servants, organised into a hierarchy and running different domains for their lord. Samurai had to adhere to their code: courage, righteousness, benevolence, respect, honesty, honour and loyalty.

As I walked around the exhibition, I became aware that the term ‘samurai’ is more commonly used in the West than in Japan. Instead, the usual Japanese term is musha for warrior – or bushi to describe the ruling class.

The pursuit of perfection is apparent in everything they did

Advertisement

The exhibition also carefully pointed out another misunderstanding – that samurai warriors mainly used their swords in battle. Their main weapons and the ones they trained on endlessly were in fact the pike (yari) and the bow and arrow (yumi and ya). The exhibition is filled with such weapons, including their swords (katana). 

And contrary to the generally accepted view that woman stayed at home looking after the household, the exhibition reveals how many women were trained in weapons and martial arts. Tomoe Gozen was one such female warrior, an expert in bow and sword in around 1180. There were also a couple of vivid paintings of a female warrior slicing through a soldier. 

Yet samurai weren’t just warriors – in fact, in the last 200 years before the Meiji Restoration, the country was pretty stable, with very little warfare. This led to them becoming artists, writers and poets, and the displays of their work were compelling. Perhaps the most illuminating was the painting of the formal procession of the courtesans in Edo (Tokyo), as well as books and paintings about the sexual proclivities of this warrior class.

The museum had also gathered together a fascinating and stunningly elaborate array of Japanese armour. Similarly exquisite, but more understated, were the various costumes and beautiful clothes.

This spectacular exhibition enabled me to see how detailed and precise the culture of the samurai was. 

From their armour and paintings to their books and swords, and even a deeply structured tea ceremony, the pursuit of perfection is apparent in everything they did – not just as armoured warriors engaged in the brutal art of war. In fact, this pursuit of perfection led even to the steel in their swords being of probably the highest quality in the world.

My great-grandfather’s brother-in-law, I understand, was one of those samurai who had become a full-time artist having moved to China – and which in turn led to their meeting.

As I wandered round the exhibition, I noticed how many young children were peering intently at the armour on display, even holding an imaginary katana above their heads. After all, much samurai culture has become part of modern western culture. You only have to look at the American film industry to see the extent of its influence. From The Magnificent Seven to Darth Vader’s helmet, cloak and lightsaber, we in the West of all ages remain fascinated by this unique group of people.

That’s why I recommend that anyone who can, should take the time to see this exhibition, and I congratulate the British Museum for putting it on.

Iain Duncan Smith is Conservative MP for Chingford and Woodford Green

Samurai

Curated by: Rosina Buckland and Joe Nickols

Venue: British Museum – until 4 May 2026

15 minutes made a lot of difference to unfit participants

This might help to explain why exercise is so good for our brains

An overhaul of the family courts system means that children will be better protected from abusive parents under a new law that MPs are set to debate today at a second reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Under the new Courts and Tribunals Bill, the government will revoke the law that judged a child should have contact with both parents, which campaigners argued has put the rights of abusive parents over a child’s safety.

The move follows a decade-long campaign by Claire Throssell MBE, whose two sons — Jack, 12, and Paul, 9 — were both killed by their father despite her warnings he was a danger to them. She has since campaigned to prevent unsafe child contact with dangerous perpetrators of domestic abuse.

The Women’s Aid ambassador said:

For a decade, I have been campaigning with Women’s Aid to change the family courts system to make sure that no child is ever again placed at risk of further harm from abusive parents.

Seeing that the presumption of parental contact will finally be repealed, and in the memory of my sons, Jack and Paul, is deeply meaningful.

No child should have to hold out a hand for help in darkness, saying that they were hurt by someone who was meant to protect them. No parents should have to hold their children as they die from the abuse of a perpetrator, as I did 11 years ago.

Family courts dismantle ‘pro-contact’ culture

The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, Claire Waxman OBE, paid tribute to Throssell’s “extraordinary bravery and determination in the face of unimaginable grief and pain”.

She welcomed the government’s landmark decision which marks a decisive shift away from a pro-contact culture in family courts that has historically placed children at risk of harm from abusive parents, Waxman explained.

She said:

[Throssell’s] success in removing this dangerous presumption from family law is a vital step in dismantling the dangerous ‘pro-contact’ culture that is so deep-rooted in our courts.

This is a hard-won victory for Claire, but more importantly, it is a lasting legacy for Jack and Paul — ensuring a new era of protection and justice for every woman and child seeking safety from abuse.

The presumption of parental involvement was introduced into the Children Act 1989 to help ensure children could maintain a relationship with both parents after separation.

However, evidence shows the current process can leave children at risk of harm from abusive parents.

The current law contains safeguards that allow involvement to be restricted where it harms a child’s welfare, but repealing this provision is what campaigners have advocated for.

Featured image via Unsplash/Suzi Kim